Friday, July 21, 2006

Christians Doubt Cornuke Has Found Noah's Ark

Recent claims that Robert Cornuke discovered the Ark of Noah in Iran are questioned by several people who believe that the flood of Noah was a historical event, but doubt that Cornuke has found evidence of it.

The claim is made that the material is petrified wood, and it may be. But petrified wood is found in thousands of places around the world. Finding it here means nothing. Perhaps the ark is petrified, but this would necessitate conditions and a sequence of events which hardly seem likely here. Wood is best petrified when buried in volcanic ash, but the team have asserted that the region of their discovery is not volcanic. Without precise maps and study, it would be impossible to refute this claim.

Rick Lanser of the Associates for Biblical Research has written a much more detailed article, questioning in particular the Iranian location of Cornuke's find. He concludes:

For the above and other reasons which space does not allow me to deal with, it appears that Bob Cornuke's "filters" have prevented him from dealing fairly with much information which does not fit into his "Ark in Iran" hypothesis. When such data is considered, it raises great doubt that he has found anything related to Noah's Ark on Takht-e Suleiman. I would love to see his find hold up to close scrutiny so it can be used as a witness to the world of the trustworthiness of the Bible, but if I – who, as a brother in Christ, am "on his team" – can come up with this many problems in identifying the find on Mount Suleiman with the Ark, we can be sure that an unfriendly, secular world full of dyed-in-the-wool skeptics will find many more reasons to reject it. The best I think he can hope for is that many will want to hear his story as an adventure tale – but that may be enough for him, an expected benefit of the aggressive promotion of the site at the beginning. I just hope that in view of the many problems that have come to light, he presents his audiences with the FULL story, warts and all.

3 Comments:

Where I differ with Rick Lanser is that I don't believe Josephus & Africanus actually saw the ark, so their opinion of where it actually settled is of little value; if anything, they or their sources might've seen some cheap imitation (comparable to Byzantine relics of Christianity), but it's anyone's guess at this point. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the earliest text is that names the Ararat mountains; I suspect it was a late/erroneous association. I'm also waiting for ark researchers to investigate the Himalayas with as much scrutiny as they're applying to the Near East mountains. I'm also waiting for someone to tell me if the Himalayas technically belong to the Middle East, Far East, or Near-Mid Far East.

This is a very late entry as I only read the blog today ... but ... if one thinks logically, wouldn't Noah and his family haved used the wood from the ark for building and fire purposes. (I am not a biblical scholar and therefore don't know what religious connotations would have been attatched to the ark). The earth had just been destroyed by flood, what wood would have been available for the purposes of building and fire etc? Just a thought. Maybe there is no ark left to look for!

I am neither a loyal prilgrim nor an anti-christ jerk. I do believe that Ark was exist some point in time in our human history as Bible is trustworthy. It is most likely not able to find Ark remains or relics now but it doesn't have any effect on the fact. On the contrary, finding some remains and claimed to be Ark will just arouse critics or unbelief even for christian. Finding remains of Ark is simply immaterial to Christianity.